#Freethenipple Is Another Example Of Female Narcissism And Armchair Activism

Ethan Wolfe is a university student who enjoys challenging conventionally held opinions. He is interested in the emerging red pill philosophy and seeks to actively define its tenets in order to equip men everywhere to lead happy and fulfilling lives.

Last week a blessedly defunct and thoroughly ill-conceived social media campaign, #freethenipple, was resurrected by 17-year old-Icelandic student, Þóreyjardóttir Smáradóttir, after she posted a photo of her breasts online to promote “Free the Nipple” day; a local feminist initiative at her school.

Social media exploded with hoards of women posting nipple-baring selfies in a show of solidarity with the young student, after she removed a post of her breast from Twitter due to alleged backlash from other users.

#freethenipple, like many feminist social media campaigns, is ill-formed and nonsensical, blending ineffectual activism with vaguely defined messages of self empowerment. Among such an incoherent mixture, two primary campaign messages stand out: participating women believe they ought to be allowed to show breast nudity on social media, and they demand equality in the capacity to bare their nipples in public spaces.

There’s a glistening plethora of inane bullshit spread across this entire premise so allow me to carefully unpack for you the staggering nonsensical nature of this campaign.

Social Media Is Privately Owned

Þóreyjardóttir Smáradóttir decided to remove a picture of her nipple she had posted online, after receiving criticism from a follower.

First, let us address the social media issue. In my experience, women, wholly irrationally, often view social media as something which they personally own. They wrongly interpret the tools they use as extensions of themselves; something over which they are entitled to a degree of agency. This is incorrect. This entire perception of injustice stems from an inability to appreciate the rights of a private business entity.

Unless a woman is a majority shareholder in Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, she has no right to dictate the policies of such companies. These are profit-driven entities with a large and diverse user base. Their policies are inextricably influenced by the tastes of the consumers that use them.

If Facebook deems that allowing what is legally considered nudity on its user-created ads would be detrimental to its public image and ultimately its bottom line; then it is perfectly within its rights to restrict such content.

This fundamentally reflects the entitlement of young, particularly female social media users. They suggest that they ought to have absolute control over a service and tool, one which they use free of charge and almost without any other restrictions. The catalyst for this campaign was a woman receiving criticism online! I can guarantee it wasn’t a thoughtful dissertation on the merits of public modesty, but rather a simple declaration resembling; “Your boobs are gross and I don’t want to see this shit,” which drove Þóreyjardóttir Smáradóttir to remove her nipple-baring photo. Shaming works.

The inability of young women to cope with immutable aesthetic criticism is a driving tenet of many modern feminist initiatives, and is the reason the second mandate of the #freethenipple will ultimately fail to produce tangible change.

Loading...

Public Nudity Is Created Equal

You’re free to swim shirtless. I’m free to call you a disgusting fatass.

It’s considered appropriate for men to bare their chests in a number of public environments such as sites of physical labour, in public parks, and in places of recreation where water is present. Beyond such venues, society is generally self-regulating and public nudity is not tolerated. For example, a shirtless man will not be permitted into most businesses, places of worship, or public venues of education.

Within the confines of such appropriate venues, social pressures regulate the behavior of men. A grossly overweight pale male, exercising in a public space such as a park, must fundamentally understand the social nature of such a space and accept the possibility that other patrons may, and often will, make derisive comments regarding his appearance.

Where, then, does a woman require the freedom to expose herself that she currently lacks: in jobs of manual labor? I challenge any feminist to find me one female construction worker who would enjoy exposing herself in front of her predominately male coworkers. In spaces of public activity such as parks? I encourage women everywhere to start attending such venues topless if they understand they will be equally subjected to the same aesthetic criticisms as males.

Therefore, a potential activist need only recognize that such nude restrictions are the policies of a private business. If a woman’s local pool or beachhead doesn’t allow topless swimming, I encourage her to get off of her cell phone and publicly demonstrate her commitment to such practices by actively protesting the policies of the pertinent establishments.

Furthermore, I’d like to address the profoundly backward grumbling in the #freethenipple camp, which maintains that a woman publicly exposing her body somehow empowers her to prevent her own objectification. Nudity is not regular public attire for men or women. By exposing herself, a woman will inevitably draw attention to her own nakedness, fundamentally affecting the way in which she is perceived. Nudity, by virtue of being uncommon, necessitates that any casual observer define a naked individual by such a trait. Being defined as naked, and by extension, as a sexual object, is the definition of objectification.

Wrapping Up

Chanting a slogan is easy. Winning the war takes effort.

I don’t disagree with the right to protest; I think groups ought to have the right to lobby to change something they feel is affecting their quality of life. “Activists” of #freethenipple tend to point out that prior to the early 20th century, men were subject to similar laws prohibiting upper body nudity in public (including public beaches). Omitted, of course, is the fact that those men actively protested such laws by continuing to demonstrate topless in public. Activists were often arrested and prosecuted, until 1936 when the US amended its laws to allow men to be bare-chested in public.

It’s one thing for a young woman to frivolously post topless pictures of her breasts, carefully crafted and sufficiently edited, from within the private, non-threatening environment of her own home; it’s quite another to actively protest perceived oppression by baring her breasts in public.

I challenge the women supporting #freethenipple, a fundamentally frivolous campaign of baseless self-congratulation, to actively engage their communities and demonstrate their commitment to equality by publicly exposing themselves in protest. I encourage them to seek arrest and prosecution as means to achieving their purported goals because, somehow, posting lazy boob selfies and demanding equality from the living room sofa just isn’t working.

I don’t use twitter, but yeah I think that’s the first they would say. Then, like the other post of Roosh some fat and bored journalist would find our offensive comments and post it online and we would soon be out of job…

If guys were allowed to walk around with our dicks hanging, the feminists would be complaining that they only got hard around the hot feminine women and not around them. That would be true innate biological rejection of them. LOL!

A long, long time ago women demanded their bodies be protected from what they view as sexual abuse. Not just penetration, but even touching the parts they viewed as erotic zones. Male legislators obeyed as they pretty much always do.

However, women themselves agreed that if a body part, when touched, rose to sexual assault, women were to KEEP IT COVERED UP!

Men don’t have body parts that are protected like that. In fact, very popular movies have a plot of men being violently assaulted in their genitals.

When men run into the police station sobbing their hearts out because some woman touched their boobies will be time for men to cover them up at all times. Until then, this is just more attempts to completely control men, strictly for the sake of controlling them.

yes, and that time was called the victorian era. We’ve come a long way since then. Back then ankles, legs and much more was to be covered in much the same way. Men & women thought it just as sexual. Then women came along who wanted to expose those and did, eventually it became less sexual. Just as it did for men when they protested for the right to be topless, now no one cares in both instances. Yet you can still touch women’s legs and be charged for sexual harassment so evidently it has nothing to do what they do or do not cover. By your logic women should wear burkas if they don’t want to be touched anywhere without consent.

Women have historically thought to be the weaker sex, physically that is true. Thus their are more laws on their guarding. Men are taught to be tough and that they can’t be victims of sex abuse. They can, but not many people seem to care about that.

This is precisely what your well-intentioned argument for female “equality” and “freedom” on all dimensions is misguided. You fail to understand or foresee the unintended consequences of giving women too much freedom, or you operate on false premises that men and women inherently equal and similar to men in all dimensions, and therefore deserve the same “rights” and privileges such as baring their breasts in public. The same argument was made to relax social mores to enable women to have casual sex in the same way as men did.. but women aren’t the same as men. They are inherently physical weaker, and vulnerable to sexual violence and predation from some men in a way that men don’t have to worry about from women. And to truly give women that that “freedom” that doesn’t exist naturally, you have to involve that leviathan known as the State to create and enforce draconian, intrusive and ultimately, impractical laws (see Calfornia’s new “yes is yes” consent law for example) to protect women from their own stupidity, bad decisions, regrets and/or protect them from the inherent inequality between the sexes .. and much of it at the expense of most men. The end result of this is LESS freedom for everyone, not more.

In the same way, your misguided attempt to level the playing field for women by demanding they have the same “freedom” to bare their breasts could have unintended consequences that end up limiting the freedom of most men.. because as the experiment of feminism and granting women sexual freedom has proven, women will demand only the men “hawt enough”.. alpha enough.. thuggish enough.. only the men who the women find attractive enough are giving a free pass. Those men can do no wrong. Those men are free to flirt with women, approach women, ask them out, etc… and women gush and cream their panties and can’t stop talking about how “confident” and daring he was to approach her. But should the wrong man, i.e, unattractive men, dare to look at her bare breasts that she is freely exposing in public, he will be called a “creep” and she will scream “rape!.” What women really despise and loathe is an ugly, unattractive man or a man of low social status who has the audacity to flirt with her or dare approach her.

This is why feminism at its core is really all about women loosening restrictions on female sexuality in order to slut it up with alpha men and men she finds “hawt” and attractive.. while restricting the freedom of beta males and those she finds unattractive. If you look at feminism through this lens, everything becomes clear. .and its supposed “contradictions” all vanish. There are no contradictions because feminism was never really about “equality.” Only a buffoon at this point believes that. If you want to understand the real intentions and results of an ideology you look at the results and empirical reality.. not the ideological arguments and propaganda in support of it.

you construct quite a large straw man there if you think i’m saying men and women are the same in all dimensions. I believe i have already said that’s not the case. However, our chests are anatomically identical so their is no reason they cannot be identical under the law. The differences should be taken into account when they are relevant, which they are not here. Yes, men can and will find breasts attractive. Just like they find bikinis attractive, or legs, or a great number of things. That does not mean we must force women into burkas. Men are perfectly capable of adjusting to the liberalizing of women’s dress, as we have done every now and then since the victorian era. After a while the novelty of these changes wears off and it becomes no more exciting than what was previously acceptable. Thus it becomes far more easier for men to exhibit self control. Which is why in Countries where toplessness in quite common the only people who gawk and stare are tourists. Desensitization works wonders.

A man’s chest does not carry the same connotation as a woman’s breasts. Women’s breasts are sexual organs. A man’s bare chest just is not the same. This is a classic example of feminists trying to equate something to a double standard when it is really apples and oranges.

Society expects women to cover their sexual organs just like a man does. Nothing else here to see but that.

Women’s breasts aren’t sexual organs either, they feed babies, not create them, which is what a sex organ is. Anatomically the male and female chest is exactly the same, only difference is hormones. Which is why many men get manboobs and yes, even lactate. Everything else is purely cultural, which is why other cultures, even some western European ones, are perfectly fine with women being topless along side men. It can work there, there’s no reason it can’t work here either.

considering thong bikinis are a thing, particularly in South America, it could happen. Maybe not in Chuck E’ Cheese but then guys have to keep their shirts (and pants) on there too. We’re just talking about equal treatment here.

You can give a biology class all you want but In society now days breasts are sexual objects regardless if their biological functions. People shouldn’t be exsposing themselves to strangers simple as that. These same women exsposing their tits claiming they don’t wanna be sexual objects would be extremely sad if all men decided to completely ignore them an show absolutely no attraction to them. They’re nothing but attention whores.

yes, because our society has made breasts sexual objects by hiding them away except for when they are used for sexual purpose. Their are plenty of societies where women can be topless alongside men and no one thinks anything of it. Its called being desensitized. That doesn’t mean they can’t be sexual in the right contexts. Heck, men flaunt their abs around trying to get attention too, no one calls them whores. People want attention, why just complain women do it?

Doesn’t matter if society now has made them sexual objects or not reality is they are in our society, an I believe people shouldn’t be flaunting sexual anatomy to strangers. As for abs they arn’t a sexual object they are just something a lot of women find attractive same as some men find women’s legs attractive, showing some leg is different from walking around with your breasts showing or dick hang in out. Besides I can’t show up to my work with my shirt off I’d be told to put a shirt on by my boss. Men posing an showing off their abs know they are seeking attention, they don’t disguise showing off their body as some kind of SJW cause. This woman flashing her nipple is a hypocrite, she wants attention but claims she does it to stop men paying attention to women.

and 100 years ago ankles where just as, if not more, sexual than breasts. That is why they wore long dresses that covered them yet were ok with displaying cleavage. That has evidently changed, just like it would change for breasts once they are seen in the same degree of normality. Its simply psychology, it just takes desensitization. No one is saying women should be topless everywhere, just wherever and men legally have that right. Men showing their abs don’t need to do so for any cause, they already have that right and acceptance. Women do not, that is why they started this movement. If it was just as normal for them, just as it has in other cultures, then they wouldn’t be doing this campaign in the first place.

I am assuming you know something of heterosexual human sexuality, but it would not surprise me if you didn’t possess any such knowledge.

Men views breasts as sexual organs and they also function as sexual organs on women. (Oddly though, at least in nature, the human is one of the few species to treat female breasts as a sex organ). Female breasts play a great role in male to female sexual identity, mate selection, and the sexual act itself.

I know I can type as much truth as I like, but you are simply not going to listen. So much for being a “freethoughtguy”. Might want to rethink the handle.

no, in OUR culture men view breasts as sexual organs. In plenty of other cultures they view them as parts of a women’s body that can be sexualized in some situations and not it others, feeding babies for example. Desensitization works wonders. Male chests play a role in mate selection and most females view them pretty sexually too. Male nipples can be stimulated during sex in much the same way. It seems I’m not the one lacking knowledge of human sexuality here…

You are clearly not a heterosexual and very clearly not a man. Female breasts are sexual organs and I couldn’t give a damn if some backward culture somewhere else in the world might view them as something else. Here is the West we view them as sexual organs. I don’t see what we gain from trying to change that other then fat, ugly women will walk around without their shirts and then scream sexual harassment when the wrong man checks them out. If there is any justification beyond those already presented it is that it keeps annoying feminists from being even more annoying.

So that would make me a homosexual female, right? You realize they are attracted to women too, right?

100 years ago ankles where just as, if not more, sexual than breasts. That is why they wore long dresses that covered them yet were ok with displaying cleavage. That has evidently changed, just like it would change for breasts once they are seen in the same degree of normality. Its simply psychology, it just takes desensitization. Breasts are by definition not sex organs regardless of what any culture sees them as.

We, as men, gain the ability to not be so obsessed by breasts as we currently are in our culture. When they are seen more frequently they will lose much of their mystique and will no longer be as exciting. Just like has happened in other cultures. Thus we’ll be able to exhibit more self control at the sight of a women’s body and as such no longer gawk like immature children every time we see them. We’ll also be more exposed to real female bodies and thus not complain when everyone doesn’t look like perky supermodels. I’d say its a fair trade…

Or if everything is a social construct then you must agree that we as a society can also in a similar manner “deprogram” homosexuals, right? It would just involve a little “desensitization” by your logic, right?

desensitization does not mean desexualization, it just means normalizing it to the extent people no longer freak out/gawk at the sight of it. Men will still be attracted to breasts just as women/gay men are attracted to abs. You can’t deprogram sexual attraction, not what i’m saying at all.

you can certainly change human behaviour, to a point. For instance, if you moved to Saudi Arabia after a while you’d start to see women’s hair, arms, legs, ankles, etc pretty sexually too. Men there react the same way to those as North Americans do to breasts. Sexual attraction remains constant, the degree in which we are motivated by it is what we can change.

Homosexuality is simply natures population control, as long as it remains a tiny minority, as it does in all species, its hardly dangerous.

why bother letting women expose ankles? Why bother letting them wear bikinis? If we can demonstrate that changes would allow a portion of the population more freedom then why not? Especially if it could inspire greater positive outcomes. You are confusing hyper-sexualization with sexual orientation, not the same thing. We cannot choose who we are attracted to, social conditioning can however help us control said attraction.

Because “more freedom” is not always desirable. And according to you we can choose all these things. They are all social constructs. You merely parse words to make them sound different. If we can choose our race, gender, and many other classes, certainly we can choose our sexuality. You just don’t want to admit it because then your entire house of cards comes down.

your right, more freedom is not always desirable. But one must prove it would negatively impact other’s freedom, which none of this does. We cannot choose our race, gender, or what class we are born into. We can however choose to move society in a direction where different races, genders, classes, etc are more accepted or conversely where they are not. History proves this time and time again. You clearly have no idea what i’m saying.

You are saying that gender, race, etc. don’t matter. We humans are all not “blank slates”. Those are lies. Our classes define us as humans will always do so. History proves THIS time and time again. The idea that we can sit around a bon fire, pop open a coke, and sing a song is a lie of the 60’s. Get over it ISIS would behead you in a second. Abandon your pie in the sky hippie junk before it is too late for you.

no, i’m saying they can’t CHANGE. Those distinctions are absolutes, how society treats people based on these absolutes is a social construct. That is why back in the day slavery was a thing & now its not. That doesn’t mean black people stopped being black. How people perceive other people changes, the people themselves do not.

men don’t “have” to look at topless women anymore then they “have” to look at topless men. Equal rights always betters society. But it will also make us men more used to fact not all women have nice perky breasts like we see in porn all the time. Thus ensuring we will be less disappointed at seeing our partners bodies…

if he touches, stalks, or in anyway appears to threaten her safety, yeah. If simply looking at a woman equated to sexual harassment every man would be charged pretty much every day. Talk about a gross exaggeration…

So if you follow a woman walking around topless with a nice rack to take in the view is that “stalking” or “threaten(ing) her safety” even if you are just gazing away like you would at a nice sunset? Of course it will be no matter what you say. Wake up.

so you’re telling me if someone was following you, whether it be an unattractive woman or gay guy, gawking at you you would not have a problem with it? You know stalking is a crime right? Regardless of what your intention is the person your stalking can’t read your mind.

i never said looking was a crime, i said stalking, which you were trying to defend, was a crime. Big difference. I hardly think those who are brave enough to walk around topless really care who pays attention to them. Just like when they wear bikinis, or really anything revealing. If they cared they wouldn’t be wearing them in the first place.

This is also about civilized society. It’s fine to have expectations for citizens and those expectations don’t have to be exactly the same for men and women (who are not some interchangeable gender anyhow). I’m fine with drawing the line in that women have to keep their sex organs covered just like men do.

So you’re saying societies were women can be topless most places where men can be, like Spain, Germany, France, etc are not civilized? Since their crime rate is a fraction of the US one could say the opposite. Clearly you have no idea what constitutes a civilized society….

And no “equal rights” never means a better society. It usually means the least for a society in that you don’t recognize the bare bones fact that everyone in society in not equal. We are all not the same. You cannot just take product A and make it into Juice X. It doesn’t work like that.

Pretty sure they made similar arguments when fighting agains civil rights 60 years ago. “But blacks aren’t the same so we can’t give them equal rights” We are all flesh and bone and deserve the same rights under the law. No matter the colour of your skin or the size of your breasts. Comprende?

They are not anatomically the same. They are not biologically the same. The are not socio-sexually the same. They are completely different. You are talking cats and monkeys different. Just saying something is the same doesn’t make it so. Stop doing it because it is simply not true. You are wrong. Just face the facts.

“Women and men both have breasts, but women have more breast tissue than men”.

More tissue simply a result of hormones, which men can get as well. Beards, chest hair, and enlarged adams apples are also a result of hormones. Men can lactate and derive pleasure from our nipples too.

Thus our chests are nearly the exact same, no reason they cannot be treated the exact same under the law.

hormones are not specific to either male or female, just certain levels, which can sometimes be imbalanced in either sex. If we should make things illegal because of hormone changes i guess we men have to cover our beards, chest hair, and enlarged adams apples too…

OK for the last time beard is NOT a sexual organ. Hormones make female breasts a SEXUAL ORGAN. Absent extraordinary circumstances, hormones are regulated by gender. That is a biological difference. STOP try to compare the two. They are not even close to being the same.

a breast is NOT a sexual organ either. If breasts were sex organs women with mastectomies wouldn’t be able to get pregnant. They feed babies, not create them. The fact that men can grow breasts (not that extraordinary actually) & even lactate proves they are not really that different. Stop trying to argue biology when you don’t seem to understand biology…

OK this is my last post because trying to tell you the sky is blue when you say it is green is futile. Female breasts are much different then their male counterpart. That is because of gender and biology. Even if a man were to grow large breasts say due to fat they do not have the same biological sexual feedback to women as men have to them. (In fact, it is probably the opposite for women in that they would be disgusted). They are completely different. Just by drumming the same line like a leftist stooge does not make it reality. I know that has worked just about everything else the left has drummed out but it still doesn’t change the basic truth.

and again, your missing the part about being anatomically the same. They start out analogous and only after they are exposed to hormones does their physical structure change, men grow more muscle tissue & hair in the area and women grow more breast tissue. Women still have muscle tissue and men still have breast tissue. Men are attracted to women’s chests when they are in shape and women are attracted to men’s chests when they are in shape. When you add mystery and taboo it only heightens the attraction. You get rid of it it lessens it. You can try to explain your interpretation of “facts” all you want but it doesn’t change the actual facts. You’re trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, actually more like an anthill, if it’s even that. I bet their were people back in the victorian era trying to highlight differences of male & female ankle to get women to cover those, “but their more feminine, guys are attracted to them thus they shouldn’t flaunt them around” Same deal…

So, what and who in hell gives you the right to try to move 300 million people in the direction you think they should go?

This woman claims to understand history. Let us examine what history, real history not the psychotic feminist history, shows.

Unwin, 1934, said that you can tell all about a society by the sexual liberty women have in that society. Their practice of religion; their technical performances; their ability to feed their people. And he also found that every society in which women have the sexual liberty that FreeThoughtGal advocates for women ceases to exist within the lifetime of the first women to have that complete sexual liberty.

History also shows that as very civilization grows and prospers it is inevitable that women will receive the right to vote.

And, once women have the right to vote, it is inevitable they will eventually dominate the political system.

And, once they dominate the political system it is inevitable their incessant demands for total protection and benefits for every problem, including their own adultery, all of course at the expense of men, will drive that civilization into total bankruptcy and collapse.

The USA is still functioning in a way just as a hot air balloon still rises for a while after the gas tanks are empty.

so you support taking away voting rights for women and essentially reverting them back to second class citizens? Good thing your not in control of moving a society of 300 million. America has been moving in a direction of equal rights for centuries, this is just another turn in the road. With every new bout of rights their are those who complain, thankfully those are lost to the dust of history.

And what societies does Unwin use to prove his examples of women getting sexual liberty ceasing to exist? Perhaps this guy was just another pseudo-intelectual misogynists who were a dime a dozen back in 1934. Fearing the idea of giving women equal rights would upset their hold on power. Religion and political ideology appear to be doing more damage to society than sexual liberation of women. I think you need to update your research.

Societies must first of all be sustainable. The feminist society we have in the USA, and the type you support is not sustainable. Yet, you want more of the same. Please keep it up. I have been at this a long time and I am convinced the only solution is to let it collapse, return to the Dark Ages (there will be no abortions and no bikinis and no alimony and no DV centers and no billions of dollars for feminist programs) and build it back up from scratch. The quicker the better.

Actually thousands of years of recorded history. From Babylon and the Roman Empire. All major civilizations only lasted around 250 years in a given form, then had to be restarted from scratch.

And, always for the same reason. Putting female supremacy as the primary goal of government.

The USA is at that time period, and we are technically bankrupt, waiting only for our creditors to throw the switch.

Many people know and understand this. Yet cretins like you attack! attack! attack! Usually with personal attacks. Misogynist. Woman hater. Gloomy! Gay! Mother problems. Small dick! Anything you can think of.

But, that doesn’t change reality. Reality is the USA (and other English speaking nations as well) can go down at any minute, just as Russia did in 1989.

But, I am sure you can single-handedly stop it, by calling me names and by clever debating. Right?

But, in truth societies can only sustain themselves by staying within certain limits. The most important limit is a society to survive must have a meaningful role for men.

Margaret Meade wrote this back in the 50’s after studying many societies. She said a successful society must give men and women a role which affirms their sex.

Women unless otherwise trained will feel affirmed as women if they can birth and raise babies.

Men need an artificial role to affirm their masculine nature. There can be many ways to do this. Traditional societies made men the warriors. Other successful societies made men the bread winners and head of the families.

In the English speaking nations today it is Federal law that men will have no unique role at all ever. Not as warriors. Not as bread winners. Not as head of families None. Zip. There is no unique role for men to affirm their masculinity.

Women still have their babies so they are fine.

But, why do you think I am gloomy? I can see that you uneducated morons think the collapse of the USA would be bad. I do not. I am one who hopes to see it before my death. You see I don’t live in the USA.

The quicker that sick f**k society is wiped off the face of the earth the better.

But, of course, I am sure you can stop it single-handedly. Simply call me every name you can think of and thus guarantee the USA will continue as it has been, for thousands of years. Hee, hee.

I haven’t but i’ve know many who have, my uncle did some traveling in Iran. He said after a while ankles become a lot more exciting to see. Their are many similar testimonies from back in the victorian era in our culture.

Detailed analysis of life in a Muslim nation. Ankles are important. I am impressed at your vast knowledge.

You simply cannot make up stuff like this.

There are basically three ways a society can function.

###

No special order here. One way is men in charge and men and women at peace.This was the USA in its productive days. When almost all inventions in the world came from the USA. I realize feminists and stupid men who believe feminists have a false view of history.

But, women tend to be very narrowly located around the mean. that is why there are few women with i.q. over around 140, nor below 60. And why most humans with i.q. over 140 are male, and why most humans with i.q. under 60 are male.

So, the high achievers are almost always male. Not because of evil discrimination but because of what i just said, most high achievers will be male. Just as most losers will be male.

Most men will not be high achievers. I am not one of them and it is obvious you are also not one of them.

This thread is typical of high achieving women. Instead of studying ways to improve society or science or medicine as high achieving men do, high achieving women are worried about why women can’t run around with their nipples hanging out, as they do in most starving nations. Great work, idiots.

So, when the small number of high achieving men are permitted by society to flourish, the society will flourish. When you have affirmative action programs and the most qualified men are prohibited from good employment nothing good happens.

###
The second way is for men to be in charge, but men and women not at peace. An example is Mexico. Whereas the first style of society are creators, this type are maintainers. Given goodies from the USA in its prime, Mexico can install and run high technology but don’t invent anything important.

Economists though predict that within a generation Mexico will be the economic powerhouse of the western hemisphere. At a glance that doesn’t make sense.

But, having inside knowledge, I happen to know a number of absolutely great “Yankee capitalists” in Mexico. Incredibly successful men. They all have one thing in common.Though in the society itself men and women are not at peace, these ultra-successful men have wives who are totally cooperative and supportive in every way.

###
The third structure of a society is when women are in charge. But this is an oxymoron because societies where women are in charge are Destroyers. The best example of a society where women are in charge is sub-Saharan Africa. Those folks live in houses made of sticks and mud. Their life expectancy is not zero, but very small.

Another example, but not as obvious because they mooch off the declining function of the USA, is the Inner city ghetto.

But of course I am wrong and you pathetic feminists are right. All you have to do to change history forever is just call men like me really clever and nasty names and history will simply freeze. Heh, heh.

you start rubbing a women’s leg without her consent and you might just face sexual harassment all the same, that doesn’t mean women should cover her legs in public. Technically putting your hands anywhere for with sexual intent without one’s consent can be sexual harassment, it’s up to the victim to report it and the police to file it as such. Since men are taught to be less ashamed of their sexuality than women that teaches them they should enjoy such advances or shrug it off when they don’t. But that’s a whole other issue.

once more: they dont respect you. they may say so but really, they dont. youre like a pawn that does whats convenient to them. this has nothing to do with respect.
you have apparently no clue about woman yet you support them. an attempt to control a mans behaviour in a personal environment is a strong indicator of interest, also known as shittest. when she doesnt do this it means she isnt interested in you. im not surprised you dont get to see many females doing this, because this would require you to be someone desireable. a pawn that does what its been told is exactly the opposite. for a relationship, such behaviour is not wanted nor respected. or tell me: how many of your femi-friends have slept with you yet?

Spoken like a true ideologue trying to pit society against each other, painting women as the “enemy”. I don’t think i’m the one who has no cue about women. They are not the enemy, they just want to be respect to the same degree as you or I. No more then gays, blacks, or any other marginalized group. Demeaning people because they want the same equal treatment you or i get is definitely not going to get you respect from them. I don’t do this to sleep with anyone, that is not the total value of women. I have however made some significant contacts through supporting women’s rights, which may work towards other advantages. Besides that, I do this because it’s right. Because I’m capable of empathizing with the struggles of others.

im not trying to pit anyone against eachother, nor is my intention to paint woman as an enemy. all i did was describing normal female behaviour. equal treatment would suggest we are equal, which we are not. this starts from hormones to personal preferences to a different wiring in the brain and continues over different style of communication. its no coincidence womans magazines hold different content then mans, there is no equality. this doesnt mean we should belittle them just for being born with a vagina, but treating two different parts the same wont work, it might work for one part, but the other will suffer at the same time, because it has different needs.

“I don’t do this to sleep with anyone, that is not the total value of women.I have however made some significant contacts through supporting women’s rights, which may work towards other advantages”

this, my friend, speaks volumes. dont you think woman like sex? that woman value sex? i can assure you: they do. but not with everyone. isnt it weird that no one showed interest in you, no matter how nice and supporting you are? be honest: doesnt this confuse you?

We have been just so used to inequality between the sexes we cannot comprehend anything different. You tell men & women to act a certain way from birth they will. It does not even have to be overt but suggesting adhering to gender roles through communication & mass media. You give them equal opportunity and freedoms which are reflected in the media as well and you might be surprised how similar are wiring can become. Yes, their will always be subtle differences in physical strength, emotion and maternal instincts, etc, but they should never justify inequality under the law. To give one sex more rights than the other due to differences in wiring is just absurd regardless.

I never said women cannot value sex, i said sex is not central to a woman’s (or man’s) value. I have had lots of interest in me, particularly recently as i’ve become more attuned to women’s rights. Don’t be so certain you know the opposite gender, i assure you you do not. You have a better chance at gaining respect from them when you respect them back….

I have moderated a number of men’s boards over the years. When a woman comes on a man board and wants the men to think she is a man the first thing she does is use a name to fool you into thinking she is a man.

A few weeks ago, a woman used the name John. A dead give away.

The Guy in FreeThoughtGuy is also a dead giveaway. She doesn’t say she is a guy, but she works hard to make you think so.

Some years ago, on DGM-2, a woman lawyer came on, and started preaching that pre-nups were binding which is a base lie. When you need a pre-nup they are very specifically not any good.

Finally at one point in the debate, she said, “Yes, but…”

“Yes, but…” is as feminine as anything can be. I nailed her stupid arse so tight she admitted she was a woman.

Not long ago on either here or AVFM a lawyer started preaching that properly written and applied pre-nups are binding. She used the name John. However, she refused to give an example fo when a pre-nup would be binding.

I did. A man with a farm and a woman with a farm want their own farms to go to their children when they die. Big hairy deal. Few of us care what happens to our stuff when we die if our wives stick with us until death. We want protection when the fiends dump us for a man with a bigger schlong and kidnap our kids. Pre-nups cannot do that, period.

so caring about how women are treated in our society makes me a woman means i’m a woman. I guess if I support gay rights or black rights that makes me gay or black too, eh? Or maybe i just have a little empathy or others not just like me…

Yeah, I respect that white chick with dreadlocks and tattoos, or the chick with a skrillex haircut, or the girl who straight up cuts her arms, or the girl that used to be a guy! They clearly respect themselves by what they put on their body or how they mutilate it. I’d rather not give any and not get any from feminists/freaks. I’m ok with that, they aren’t.

then don’t give them any, I doubt they’d want to give any or get any from you. Yeah, cutting isn’t respectful to one’s self as it actually does permanent damage. Like drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol abuse. Those are all more a sign of no self respect than what one puts or doesn’t wear on their body.

Validation or respect as you put it from them does not exist in the same galaxy of needs for a masculine man. Far more important achievements & fun things to strive for than to bother with petty notions of respect from that group.

This is a man’s board. It is only a whole other issue if we say it is. On your feminist boards you get to set the rules. If you are coming on a man’s board while pretending to be a man, it’s the owner’s way or the highway.

It is legal for a woman to go topless in Ontario. Too bad the women who bare their breasts are usually fat and ugly. I don’t understand women who deliberately do things to get attention from men and then cry sexual harassment or “oppression” when men look at them.

Any woman who respects herself isn’t going to participate in #freethenipple or whatever feminism du jour nonsense that overprivileged white women are advocating. Breasts are sexual in this culture and they need to be treated as such. There is only one man who gets to see my breasts and that is my husband.

yes, sometimes they do things for attention, sometimes they do things because they want to be comfortable out in the hot sun. The important thing is for us to understand the difference and allow you the opportunity to have the same freedom if you so choose without being shamed for it. Respect has nothing to do with what you put or decide to not put on your body. It’s about what you do to your body. Plenty of cultures have gotten over women being topless, just like men, without being any less respected. It’s simply no big deal, as it would be here if we stopped shamming women’s bodies.

You make a good point about plenty of cultures having gotten over women being topless, but you are wrong to claim that the reason our current culture doesn’t permit women to bare breasts is because we are “shaming” women’s bodies. That’s just stupid and sounds like the regurgitation of feminist bullshit. The real reason is that for whatever reason – perhaps partly because breasts are a source of sexual fascination to men and always have been throughout history, and partly because of a puritanical Christian influence on Western culture, breasts have a sexual connotation and any type of openly sexual display has been frowned on. Not everything needs to be on public display and sometimes those sexual mores that restrict freedom are necessarily to keep civilization functioning. Freedom by itself is not the highest virtue. There are other virtues like keeping order that need to be balanced with freedom. People don’t walk around naked for the same reason.. in addition to the fact that it isn’t pragmatic to walk around without clothes.

of course women’s bodies are shamed in our culture, women can’t even breastfeed without being told to cover up and/or go feed in the toilet. It’s because they’re breasts are needlessly hyper-sexualized in our culture do them being shamed anywhere but sexual situations. That doesn’t mean they’re not sexual, but when you only see something in porn & sex it becomes far more sexual than if it was seen to the same degree of normality as any other body part. People don’t walk around naked because our environment was not conducive to our bare skin. Thus we invented clothing and after millennia of only seeing our fully nude bodies during the act of procreation that’s what it became associated with. When Puritanical religious ideology started shaming sexuality the human body was shamed too by association. It really is purely cultural.

There’s no echo chamber here, what you posted probably applies to the outliers. If i have respect for my body i won’t put a bullet hole in it or write crazy shit or have self inflicted wounds even if “Respect has nothing to do with what you put or decide not to put on your body” is some how remotely true.

The problem with moving the goal post is people forget why the post is there to begin with and find feel good reasons to move it. Lets keep it where it is…

Well, a woman who respects herself isn’t going to show her sexual organs to the world. We do not live in a culture which is accepting of women being topless. Men and women’s bodies are different and I am so tired of feminists pretending as if men and women are the same. Men do not have breasts.

and these women aren’t showing their sexual organs to the world. Breasts are secondary sexual characteristic, not sex organs. They are anatomically the same as men’s chests, only differences is because of hormones. 50 years ago we didn’t live in a culture where bikini were acceptable, 100 years ago we didn’t live in a culture where women could expose ankles. Or vote. Now we do because women said they wanted to do those things, many objected, even women. They said much of the same things you are saying. They lost, culture changed, people got over it. Just like they will with this. Just like other cultures have where women can now be topless without anyone losing their minds or questioning whether they have self respect. Just like men have been able to do in our culture for nearly a century.

A while back CJ posted a prank he did on an online dating site. He made a profile-pic by taking a 6 and photoshopping his face on it. He named the profile Camille Jockey and had hundreds of betas messaging him.

CJ is alright looking (no homo), but Camille Jackey is just confusing to look at.

American women are trashed out sluts, except they’re called sex positive feminists now. Add a dozen men to her notch count on vacation. Its all about getting her brains fucked out from random men she’ll never see again. Isn’t tinder fun?

“I’ve never been hit on or been bought so many drinks in my life. And let me be the first to point out this was not a time in my life where I was particularly well dressed or attractive or thin. It was astonishing how many men in their late 20s tried to pick up 18 year old me in jeans and a sweatshirt…. while I was hanging out with my mom. So if I can manage to make out with 4 different dudes in one night in that situation, so can YOU.”

Yeah, white knighting.
What do you care about a bunch of Porto potties with tits slutting it up?
Even if that did mean the end of the western world, the men would rebuild it in no time anyway. And by then we’d have alternative means of reproduction. So its win win for men in these days and lose lose for women.
I don’t know about you or anyone here but I’m not about to save twats to save the west.

Since internet technology was dumbed down to the level of the average hamster brain, millenial women have embraced public degradation like no other generation. Things are going to get worse before they get better.

Ultimately, through a complicated but predictable set of movements and events, it will lead to the material dissolution of the western world.

But most people won’t know it until slowly the stores start running out of food and essential supplies and the power supply starts to fail because there are no capable young men left to perform basic maintenance on the grid.

Beta males require a carrot in order to produce to their full potential. In the past this has always been the promise of a chaste young wife with whom to start a family.

Both the wife and resulting offspring motivated the beta male to produce beyond what he needed just for himself. What do you think happens when more and more of these beta males realize the deck is increasingly stacked against them?

Do you think coal miners in 1800 enjoyed dying of black lung at 45? No, they did it to support their family. How many of these men do you think would’ve gone down those shafts day after day if they only had themselves to care about? Very few.

Society as we know it hinges on the excess production generated by beta males in service of their families, take these families away or make the proposition of a family so dangerous ( divorce rape, family court and false accusations of (child)abuse ) that their risk/reward analysis leads them to opt against it and the whole pyramid crumbles.

Very clear rundown. I’m actually surprised at how slowly betas are cluing in, yet they ARE cluing in, albeat a bit slowly. But it will snowball. For whatever reason, Anglo women are putting in serious effort towards being extremely unattractive. More and more betas are going to figure it out. Live minimally, if not overseas entirely, and maintain access to male heavens like South Asia, Cent. America etc. When I see a young dude head to the altar with some Lena Dunham type, I just can’t believe how much of dumb animal he is. He’s just prey in the food chain at this point. How much more do they need to see? How much worse would it have to be? How much more unfair do divorce laws have to be? How many more friends do they need to see divorce-raped? How fat do the girls need to become? How masculine do the girls need to become? Until the millenial betas can recognize this. It’s more obvious than a hissing rattlesnake on the trail for pure instinctual warning. Yet some guys still miss it.

Oh look, a man whining about women wanting the same equal rights & freedom we as men have enjoyed for nearly a century. Topless women are not “exposing” themselves anymore then men can and currently do on beaches, parks on hot days, social media sites, etc. That is what all this about, as well as making breasts less of a taboo thing so that when nursing mothers go to feed their child people don’t freak out. If that is narcissism you have to define the men who protested for the SAME right 80 years ago as narcissists. Their courage is why we currently have the rights for bare are chests in the situations above. Women did the same thing 50 years ago in France and now it’s a non-issue in European media and most public beaches. As it would be here after a while if we just stopped catering to the prudes who feel nipples to be more obscene than war, gun violence, and you know, things that actually harm people.

if you don’t like how they look don’t look bud. The only reason they’re doing this is because people keep freaking out at the sight of women’s nipples. If people stopped freaking out and just let them their thing they wouldn’t need to be promoting it.

Well, it will be on my face if I’m out in public. Will I find it attractive?! No, because they’re not attractive. But if it was a hot girl, then yes I’ll enjoy it. If they want it legalized, fine with me because all I have to do is enjoy the sight of tits everyday!

Women want the right to do what they want when they want without any interference (from anyone).

No one has the right (not even men). Women want control and power (not equality). It gets more obvious each day. I don’t see women “manning up” and taking the responsibility (or accountability) for their actions. They simply blame it on something else (versus looking at their own bad behavior).

Men, call it like you see it (when you see it). Call a woman out on her bad behavior every time (because enough people aren’t doing it). Don’t be afraid to shame…it’s a missing “need” in our society.

I’d go there. Yep I know what you mean, they are topless. All I have to do is have fun. French girls are hot because most of them are not overweight unlike ugly femtards who are promoting #freethenipple.

So you’re saying that on the beaches of France women are walking around with no tops?
Do you mean “nude beach” or just any beach? Nude beaches are pretty common everywhere in the world.
And are there actually even laws that women cannot be topless in Canada/US in the first place?

most beaches in France, and indeed most western Europe its normal to see women without tops. It’s just a normal thing, like bikinis are here. It’s not as popular as it once was, particularly in France, but that’s most likely because of the rise in the influence of American breast-shaming media.

Not that I feel bad about it, mind you. Women vote, in the vast majority, for left wing policies which include mass immigration from shitholes. It’s only right that women reap the benefits of their decisions.

i love how you assume i’m pro-muslim. But researches have actually asked french women and the reasons they give is primarily due to how breasts are seen in the media, which has become much more Americanized.

No feminist stand for equal rights and opportunity. You all like to say that you do, but the truth is, you only want to steal all power from men and denounce all women who don’t follow your toxic ideology.

no, some 2nd wave feminists do. Those are the feminazis you refer to. I am a man, i wouldn’t be for this cause if i thought anything stole power from men. Putting us on equal footing I’m all for, this is what this is trying to do. Nothing more.

i don’t like to say i’m feminist. I support equal rights, whether they be for women, gays, or people of different races, etc. I’m not one to hang around echo chambers of those i agree with. It’s boring lol

The thing is feminism is not black and white, some feminists support equality, some do not. THAT is why i don’t like to say i’m a feminist. If anything, I’d say i’m 3rd wave, but most don’t really care about going into that amount of detail.

No feminist stands for equal rights and opportunity. If you did, you all wouldn’t be so focused on hating men and denouncing women who refuse to follow your toxic ideology. Feminism only focuses on the rights of affluent white women and nobody else.

Perhaps their are more white feminists because their are statistically more white people in the west? Just a thought. I’ve never seen a feminist factor colour into any of their causes. Just because a white person is supporting a cause doesn’t mean they are supporting it for white people only…

Well, if a woman wants to go topless, let her. She just shouldn’t expect men to not check her out. The problem is, she’ll think he’s ‘rapey’ when it’s normal for most men to do so. I honestly don’t mind topless chicks and if she’s hot enough then my first instinct is to check her out.

Well fuck them and their feeling “uncomfortable” about it. They are not entitled to feel comfortable about doing something that is intentionally sexually arousing to men.. i.e, being free to expose their breasts in public. Freedom comes with a price. If they want to be free to expose their breasts, I don’t care.. let them do it.. but then don’t whine and bitch about “rape culture” when men stare at your bare breasts, you stupid bitch.

who says they are trying to intentionally arouse men? Maybe they just want to be comfortable, you know, like you or I at the beach on a hot day. Sure we can look, but that doesn’t mean we have to stare like a bunch or rapists. It’s called self control…

The fact is though.. it will have this result whether they like it or not. Men are sexually aroused at the sight of a woman’s bare breasts. She is not entitled to bare her breasts and also feel comfortable about it and demand men don’t stare at her. And if men want to stare at her bare breasts, who the fuck are you to say they can’t? That’s the problem with your stupid, simplistic arguments in favour of “freedom”.. which I elaborated on at length and greater detail in another comment, and whose point you seem to have entirely missed.. so I won’t repeat myself here. Sure, some men might have the self control to not stare.. but a lot of men won’t. And why should men in the first place be expected to have self-control over a woman flaunting her body and sexuality in public? So what are you and your breasts-baring women going to do when their stupid actions have the predictable consequences of a lot of men staring at them? Call the cops on them? Is she going to scream “rape” and “creep” at all the men she finds unattractive who are staring at her breasts? It’s really this simple: if women want the freedom to do stupid things, they should be willing to face the consequences. They are not entitled to freedom to do stupid things like going naked in public and to feel comfortable doing them.. and to be protected from all the men the women find unattractive staring at them.

The thing is it’ll be less arousing after some degree of normalizing. That is why men in cultures where toplessness is normal don’t walk around with erections. They’ve been desensitized. That does not mean they don’t see them sexually, just its no more sexual than how women see a particularly attractive male chest. Yes, their will be an adjustment period where men will stare, yes, women will have to understand that. But once novelty fades that’ll be less the case. But the reality is you underestimate the ability of you and your fellow men. I’ve debated a fair bit of muslims from Islamic countries who think a woman not draped in a tent is “flaunting her body”, no doubt they’d have a hard time adjusting to a woman in jeans and a t-shirt. But they they could do it just as we have and just like many Europeans have in regards to bare breasts. It just takes time.

Soooooo … they’re happy if we look at them, but not happy if we stare? Is that where we’re going here? Shall we equip men with stopwatches for how long they can look? Shall we have women emblazon time limits down to the half-millisecond across their forms so we know when “flattering” becomes “creepy”? Perhaps we could have a whole government department dedicated to working out the optimum stare time?

would you be happy if some granny started staring at you lustfully? What about some gay dude? It’s perfectly natural for them to stare at things they find attractive. I’ll i’m saying is it’s possible to be discrete about it…

So we should not expect to have some degree of comfort in our society? So maybe next time some gay dude looks at you with lustful eyes you’re just not going to give a shit then. Or maybe you would because you’re special…

Clearly we shouldn’t or it would be illegal for hamplanets and butterhuffers to go out in public and accost my senses. I personally don’t give a shit if a gay guy is eyefucking me, guess he has good taste. But even if I did give a shit his freedom to look where he wants supercedes my “feelings”

Once you start placing restrictions on people because of how others “feel” there’s no end in sight.

Attractive women are uncomfortable when unattractive men stare at their tits, im uncomfortable seeing fat people in public, fat people are uncomforable with being confronted with thin people, people with autism are uncomfortable around other people, muslims are uncomfortable around jews. What are you going to do? Regulate on all of their behalf? Or are you going to tell them to man up and stay inside if they can’t deal with the world?

yes, their should be reasonable expectations for everyone. People should not be offended when people simply look at them but those looking should also be able to exhibit some degree of self control before it get’s too awkward. Then everyone can be happy…

“Oh look, a man whining about women wanting the same equal rights & freedom we as men have enjoyed for nearly a century.”

In my state that right is guaranteed by the constitution and it has been ratified by the supreme court.

How many topless women do you suppose I saw at the park and out jogging today? What do do you suppose one of them would say if I walked up to her and said, “Come on, baby, take it off. It’s the law.

Once a year a bunch of women who you would go out of your way to not see naked hold a topless rally and parade to protest their right, which always goes off without a hitch, as no one is denying them that right in the first place.

” . . . gun violence . . .”

I’m a “hands on” sort of guy, so I prefer the use of rope and blade, although I’m not averse to a bit of archery either. I’m heartened to see that you have no problem with that. Free thinking FTW!

“As it would be here after a while if we just stopped catering to the
prudes who feel nipples to be more obscene than war, gun violence, and
you know, things that actually harm people.”

I so love it when lefties put up utterly unrelated and perennial problems of the human condition as excuses for letting moral objections slide.

In that proud and intellectually dishonest vein, how about we now permit men to masturbate in public, in parks, on buses, on trains, on beaches?

After all, it’s natural, it doesn’t hurt anyone, and with a sustained campaign it would just be accepted after a while if we just stopped catering to the female prudes who feel male masturbation to be more obscene than nuclear weapons and, you know, things that actually harm people.

they are obviously related if they are both perennial problems of the human condition. What a logic fail lol.

Yes, there is nothing objectively harmful about masturbating in public, their is however sanitation issues which one could point out as problematic. I’d rather not sit where someone else jazzed, would you? If anyone thinks masturbation to be more obscene than nuclear weapons than i’d question their sanity just the same…

women’s nudity goes through stages. 10 years ago it was “if you do what I want, I’ll take off all my clothes”. At my age, it’s “if you DON”T do what I want, I’ll take off all my clothes.”
Equally powerful negotiating tools, mind you 😀
#wrongsideofthirty.

Correct. Women cannot get enough attention. They’ll even lie about rape just to get it, so of course they’d wrap their attention whoring up as a “positive” political statement to try to elevate it above what it obvious is–desperately seeking attention and validation. Five years from now the hash tag will be #FreeTheLabiaForLeukemia with lots of close ups of meticulously manicured lady parts, all of which make absolutely no difference for the associated cause.

I hope you are right, H. I have been waiting for over 40 years now for men to stand up like men. but I suspect they never will.

The problem is, a society’s first duty is to remain sustainable. Not just sustainable on resources, but also on motivation of the MEN who defend it to defend it. Our society currently is not sustainable.

Not motivation wise. Not financially. Not any way you can measure it. I for years have told young men to make sure to always have something white to hang out the window when the liberating force comes in.

Dr. Unwin, author of SEX AND CULTURE 1934, studied many societies. In every single case when a society granted women unlimited sexual freedom, that society winked out of existence like a candle blown out. We are following the same exact path in every detail as did the Roman Empire and Babylon and others.

It is hard to remember in great detail. So much has been dumped on the evil male over the last 50 years that it is hard to remember clearly and pick out the most important events.

Thinking it over, I am not sure I knew it would be this bad. I think at that time I still assumed that if men rose up and stood on their back legs, it could be stopped. Which is why i spent so much time fighting for men’s rights. By 1993 I realized men simply couldn’t do it. Never could. Never will be able to. So I stopped fighting and made my plans to move to Mexico.s

(Now, my efforts are aimed at Operation Rescue. Any man I can convince not to marry in the Anglosphere rescues his unborn children from the worst thing that happens to most children: maternal custody. And, every man I can convince to GTHO is a major victory.)

I now realize it is inevitable that as civilizations grow and thrive, women will be given the right to vote.

And, once they get the right to vote it is inevitable that they will eventually dominate the political system.

And, once they dominate the political system, it is inevitable that . their incessant demands for more and more benefits at the expense of men and more and more protection against everything, including their own misbehavior, will eventually destroy the society.

(You see, women vote for their own benefit and not for men. Men vote for the benefit of women and not for themselves.)

And, though I have not stated it this way before, it is also inevitable that a few men in every civilization will attempt to resist, and other men, hard wired to protect women even when they should not, will make it impossible to resist.

*Correlation does not imply causation. For example, it is possible that civilizational decline caused increasing promiscuity, or that both decline and promiscuity are related to a yet-to-be-identified variable. But acknowledging the fact that causation is not implied does not necessarily mean that the two variables are not causally related. The only way to know if this is or is not the case would be to conduct a statistical or quantitative analysis of the qualitative patterns and causal mechanism proposed by Unwin. Until such research is executed, claims of both causality and non-causality stand on equally tenuous ground with respect to the study itself.

He did not just propose a theory. He did all the things you propose in great length.

He spends so much time on raw data and explaining his methodology that you are going to need No-Doze(tm) by the bucket.

Let me say with no insult intended that when you play the role of Devil’s Advocate, you are working for the devil.

First read the book. It is allegedly available on line. I had so much difficulty reading it in digital format, even in pdf format, that I finally ordered the book from UK via Amazon. $160 with free shipping.

It was just too hard to follow his cross-references with a computer. With little post-its on print copy I could handle it.

It will be the new diet plan. You’re on the outside patio having lunch and then this disgusting topless old hag walks by. You all of a sudden lost your appetite and regurgitated part of your breakfast.

That #freethenipple hashtag is getting annoying. No one gives two shits. These narcissistic feminist pigs need to stop. I will not find it attractive ever especially since most of these girls are fat and ugly.

YMMV but I am not a breast man. In the past I dated women with a fat ass but they had to have the jugs to balance the whole thing out. Now I like reasonably slim women and I am completely content with an A or B cup. To me they are nothing more than peacock feathers.
.
One former gf got implants and went from an A cup to a D cup. The thing was that she had a size zero frame so these hooters looked massive. In fact, they weighed in at 2 pounds a piece (she was 5’4″ and went from 110 to 114 pounds). It improved her self-esteem but had no other effect on our relationship, either domestic, social or sexual.

Exactly. It also fits the simultaneous ‘victim/victor’ axis that they indulge in. Under the guise of ‘oppression’ they’re now flashing their breasts in a display that you just know is their way of celebrating their sexual supremacy. Victim/Victor.

I have my tricks but the most annoying thing is that they want you to be fucking mind readers. That goes from hitting on them and crossing the creep/cute divide to the ultimate statement: “If you don’t know then I’m not going to tell you”.

To that i reply “Oh~ so you have no idea, huh?” and maintain the frame that they are clueless and can’t be taken seriously. In reality they have no idea and are ‘borrowing’ that line in hopes of landing something their friends did.

As I said, I have my tricks built up over a few decades but my powers of hamster telepathy are not 100% accurate. I do feel sorry for guys who maybe previously were in a state of dumbfoundment but now in a state of terror: it used to be that you simply faced embarrassment if you hit on a girl and got shot down, now you face legal action or a media lynching that could mess with your job.
.
With “If you don’t know then I’m not going to tell you”, when they say it explicitly it is obviously just a shit test. I would say most have a specific grievance in mind but the more manipulative ones will just pull that out of their ass to make you squirm and then do something to please her.
.
The other variation that I have seen recently goes something like this: “but those are just words. I care about what you do, not what you say.” And then it is like pulling teeth to get her to say what she thinks you should “do”.

One of third-wave feminism’s major drives is to redefine male sexuality. Suddenly, we’re not supposed to find the sight of a bared female breast sexually enticing, contradicting thousands(?) of years of sociological and biological precedent. Yet we’re also supposed to not “fat shame” by finding obese women just as attractive as fit women.

If they legalize women being able to go topless, honestly, all I have to do is enjoy the site of breasts everyday. It does not affect me. If the girl is hot enough, I’d check her out. It’s their problem that they don’t want to be checked out, which is ironic because they’d grab an attractive guy’s chest and he won’t say anything about it.

The feminists want to deny that the female breast and nipple are a symbol of sexuality. They think female nipple = male nipple so they claim the right to expose them like men do theirs. They can’t seem to grasp and accept that they are not equal to men: In fact, their breasts are extremely desired and showing them actually has strong effects in the male population. They can’t live with that privilege and thus mock men’s hard wired desire. They want to downplay it and control men by denying them the right to have an urge and an appreciation for a female breast. They are forcing men to suppress their nature, just so they have one thing less to wear. They want to feel completely freed and have the right to do precisely anything they want. They are almost nude in public already, and it’s still not enough. Before long they will be wearing nothing at all, and men who take off their shirts in public will still be seen as douchebags, by them.

Does it even matter whether the female breast and nipple being a symbol of sexuality is programmed by nature or culturally imprinted? The feminists believe it makes a difference, but only because they can’t accept any rules. Are nudists right or wrong? Who cares, just stick to a simple rule: wear clothing in public. It’s not that difficult.

There’s no reasoning with these narcissistic freaks, they just don’t get it. So what are we left to do? Communities like this one need to crack down hard on those idiots and oppress them back to where they belong. They aren’t going to restrain themselves and their free roaming is causing damage to society.

She’s Icelandic, they probably have different laws there. Even in America you could probably argue that it was to send a message, thus covered by 1st amendment and not for a sexual purpose. For something to be porn it must have been created explicitly for sexual purpose.

As annoying as FreeThoughtGuy’s white knighting is, he makes a good point in that breasts are not inherently sexual. Many cultures, for example primitive ones in the Amazon, in Africa, etc., have women walking around topless and this is considered “normal.” Culture plays a big role in deciding and determining what is normal and not.. what is sexualized and what is not. I think once it becomes “normal” for women to bare their breasts, over time men will become desensitized to the sight of a woman’s breasts and it won’t arouse a sexual response as it currently does.

“In my experience, women, wholly irrationally, often view social media as something which they personally own. They wrongly interpret the tools they use as extensions of themselves; something over which they are entitled to a degree of agency.”

-THIS. It explains why they are literally in shock when someone calls them out on a sociopolitical rant. They believe, on some level, that public forums belong to them, and they should be free to voice controversial opinions without rebuttal.

I find that with a lot of young people, albeit more prevalent with young women. They also fail to understand that WWW stands for world wide web. Expect to be judged by what you post for public consumption.

Someone in the Mansphere noted a truism. Men expect you to earn their respect; women believe they are entitled to it. Thus, they become incensed when people do not continually kiss their ass at every turn in their social media sphere.
Perhaps they were entitled to a man’s respect during more chivalrous times. But those days are over.

Well, social media if you ask me has brought out the absolute worst in human behaviour. Extreme narcism combined with complete and utter disrespect for others. Combine that with zero sense of privacy and voila! The perfect storm.

Who cares let them go topless, real world or web world. Social media is for women, reality is for men. I could give a shit what women say on the internet, has no impact on me. In general women don’t bother me at all, faggotty social justice warriors dudes on the other hand…

And who are these people who “protested twitter” so hard that they took down this woman’s nipple? Get a life. There are plenty of boobs on the internet. So some chick in Iceland is added to the count? I couldn’t care less.

All women, even the fat ugly ones, seem to think they are entitled to alpha cock (that in reality, only the 8 and aboves out of 10 get on a regular basis. All the 7s and below want to be able to walk around topless to try to get attention (From alphas) and also want to shame and jail the majority of men they consider beneath them (betas). just shows you what they really want.

Joke’s on the feminazis.. The only “positive” attention this ridiculous exercise in shameless self-promotion will receive, will be hordes of teenage boys and dirty old bastards masturbating over their young saggy nakedness. That, and the inevitable bleating “fat shaming” and “ugly shaming” after being bullied by mostly other women online.

Women know exactly what they are doing with their breasts. Let no man be held by the illusion that any sort of cleavage display is accidental. They know the power of tits and they know how to use them.

It really is just a bunch of privileged, entitled and very unintelligent girls who want the attention that comes from claiming to be oppressed.

Witness how at the same time other feminists are trying to ban nudity. In the UK the most popular newspaper, The Sun, carried topless pictures for decades until a group of flat-chested, over the hill termagants decided to campaign to ban it and the newspaper seems to have caved in. There though, it was the revulsion that middle class feminists felt that working class men (the main readers of the newspaper) were seeing beautiful young girls. That will never do.

So it becomes about control. Feminists know they are fighting agaisnt reality, against science and against all of human nature – those things comprehensively reject the idea of equality. So instead they want power, that is why they are so excited about Hillary Clinton running for President. In the UK a quite extreme feminist has been made Director of Public Prosecutions and has wasted no time attacking the presumption of innocence in rape investigations (though not trials – yet). And in a similar vein, on a day to day level they want control, they want to control what men can do and see and when and where too. For 19 year old girls it is because they are air-headed, love attention and feel they can do anything they want. For 30 year old plus women it is the ever inescapable biological clock – so all about trying to limit the appeal of younger women, shame men for liking young women etc. So the first group campaign to “free the nipple” the second group campaign to cover it up. They’re both deluded, power hungry and ignorant and any serious society would just laugh politely and ignore them.

I know they came back a week later but I was under the impression that they have since disappeared.

Normal people didn’t care about the issue but normal people never bother to organise and agitate. So a few hundred extreme feminists can push their argument.

Clarks Shoes, Boots, Tescos – all of these have caved in to extremist pressure regarding toys or adverts being aimed at boys and girls or men and women. I might be wrong but I thought I read online that the Sun caved in too and since that one off has had no further Page 3 models?

Today women are already showing practically everything anyway. So if they expose the nipple it wont matter much. It will be mostly the ugly ones you don’t want to see that do this, just like nude beaches are usually full of hideous fat slobs. A womans mouth can be used as a sexual organ also, should they cover their mouths as well?

A while back this topic in a slightly different form came up on Dalrock. I told my personal story. I was born in 1942. My mother nursed (i.e. breast fed) babies until around 1954. My formative years were spent seeing a woman’s bare breast with a baby latched on. Not just my mother, but neighbor women as well. To this day, as long as there is a baby eating that breast does not have sexual connotations to me.

Here in Mexico it is the same. Women are in three groups. One group totally covers up at all times. The second group whips out the breast then covers it up for the duration. And, a third group simply bares it. After all these years, I have the same response I did a small boy. Baby food, not sexy to me.

Don’t get me wrong. If there is no baby there it can be an erotic sight.

When I posted this story on Dalrock, he reframed it. Reframing is something he denounces when others do it. He claimed I was somehow doing man fault. Which i was not at all. I was simply telling the truth. If men are exposed to breast feeding from childhood they don’t get all excited when they see a woman’s breast with a baby latched on. Period. Been there personally, so I know personally. It is not something you can theorize.

And, watching the Mexican men, who are about as macho as it gets, they respond about the same as I do when a woman nurses her baby.

It actually has its funny moments. There is a young married hypergamic mother, one of the sexiest women in this village. She has been trying to seduce me for quite a few years now. For a long time, when she saw me coming, she would start to feed her baby. Due to my own childhood experiences I could tell at a glance the baby wasn’t even hungry and that she knew it. But she assumed i would be turned on by seeing her boob.

This was a topic on Dalrock, because some feminists said what I just said about being used to it if you start out that way. And, out of his personal ignorance he was disagreeing with them.

But, let me explain this in simple terms. BOYS HAVE GOT TO GROW UP WITH IT! You can’t suddenly change them at age 20; 30; or 40.

Well, you can, but not until the feminists get the gas chambers online and operational.

This isn’t about breastfeeding in public, which is perfectly ok in my book. This is about a bunch of whiny children seeing something they think men have that they don’t, so they:

1) Want it for themselves
2) Don’t want men to have it.

In this case it’s the “right” to not wear a shirt in public. So true to form, these ideologues kick and scream and stamp their feet from behind the safety of their keyboards.. up until it’s made illegal for men to take off his shirt, while at the same time allocating more women’s only parks and beaches so they can go around bare breasted. Welcome to feminism.

There’s even more to this Icelandic girl. She’s actually called Adda Þóreyjardóttir Smáradóttir, but the author only listed her surnames, probably mistaking Þóreyjardóttir for her first name (for that, shame on him). Icelandic names are patronymic, ergo: Adda, Daughter of Þórey Daughter of Smári. Which means that her father is a male feminist simp who wanted his daughter to have both a matronym and a patronym, respectively. Or that her mother is a “strong”, independent woman. Probably both.

Kinda explains how she ended up like this, trying to stoke nonsensical, narcissistic social media campaigns and whoring for attention on the Internet in typical feminist self-absorbed fashion.

Being topless and posting it online, while in the comfort of her own home, provides both of these things as well. She gets the validation of thirsty betas everywhere without actually worrying that any of them will physically approach her.

In Canada, women have had the right to go topless (in areas where men are allowed to do the same) for about the last twenty years. A woman started this by walking topless down the street on a very hot day and promptly being arrested. Say what you will about the cause, she was an activist. You won’t frequently see it though, as most of us just wouldn’t feel comfortable. It doesn’t make us oppressed, it just means we aren’t used to it. In Europe you see it often (on beaches) but they tend to be more comfortable with nudity in general. Never underestimate the power of social media though, if it can successfully lead to the capture of an African warlord it can surely free a nipple or two…oh wait….never mind.

Please. #FreeTheNipple is attention-seeking that pretends to be activism (for justification). Do you really think most men give a shit if women show their nipples? That moral is largely female-enforced. Show your pussies too. We don’t care.

I’ve been on one of these European beaches, and the only women showing their tits were old. I saw 2 or 3 wrinkly old pairs total. The young ones that you wanted to see were always covered up. That Europeans are more comfortable is a false stereotype. Americans produce more porn than the rest of the world combined. I don’t think we have an issue with nudity.

a. me thinks you missed my sarcasm with respect to “freeing nipples”. I was comparing it to the wildly successful Kony 2012 campaign. I’m also being sarcastic calling Kony 2012 successful, to be clear.
b. I’ve seen European women of varying degrees of attractiveness going topless on beaches, especially in certain areas of the Caribbean. Not every woman, but a handful on every beach.
c. Porn is by and large produced and consumed in private or semi-private settings. I don’t see that having anything to due with comfort with nudity. Letting your small children run around naked on beaches, women going topless…in other words nudity in a non-sexual context, is what I’m referring to.

Another thing the female mind can’t seem to grasp (in addition to not controlling their social media) — once something is posted on the internet, it’s there forever.
Oh, you deleted it? Oh, you took your page down? Yeah, that’s about the same as destroying the receipt for your certified mail. Once it’s in the pipeline, it’s gone. It can be replicated, saved and reposted into eternity.
You posted your nipple on the net? If you know where to go, you’ll be able to find that pic on your 75th b-day and reminisce.

I was going to say, “good luck getting a job when potential employers google you”.. but in all likelihood she’s headed straight for 4 years of Liberal Arts and “Gender” Studies, so the point is moot. Luckily for her government welfare doesn’t do background checks for stupid.

I find it hilarious that a website that shamelessly bashes and condescends transsexuals/transvestites/homosexuals didn’t catch that the woman represented in the thumbnail of this article is without a doubt a transsexual. She’s pretty well-known on the internet and has been featured on thedirty.com several times. Nice job, fellas.

It would be a good idea if women could go topless. It would remove the surprise element but it wouldn’t keep boobs from being stimulating any more than the change from long to short skirts circa 1920 kept legs from being stimulating. You can verify this by seeing that there’s still leg porn in the US though men grow up seeing girls’ and women’s legs.
Same with boobs. In a few years they won’t be surprising but they will still be interesting; it’s the surprise, taboo breaking aspect that causes strong reactions.
Why it would be good is it would remove yet another way of teasing men.
The less clothes females wear the more they have to work on their personalities, all of which need improving. Go to a strip club and you’ll see that since everybody knows what they look like naked the ones who are the most pleasant get the most tips overall.

Speaking of narcissism here a diagnosed narcissist and one of the key experts on what is is all about discusses how culture and politics has been taken over by this “ethic” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0eVVh03Bnc
As for women wanting the right to go topless then why the heck not? While breasts and nipples have a sexual component to them the beholder also needs to be able to evaluate a situation in context. Just because a woman might be showing her breasts does not mean she wants everyone to come over and play with them any more than a guy driving a BMW is asking for everyone to come sit in his car.

Just need to point something out, the picture of that “woman” at the top of this article is actually a tranny. That’s a dude not a woman. For a manly site it might be best not to have a tranny as the first picture people see on this article. “Her” internet name is Kanye Chest, just google Kanye Chest and you will see.

Super -UpVote Spider58x. Talk about the “Useless Generation”. A few years ago, I was privy to a situation where a high school student went to a costume party dressed as “The Abstinance Pirate”. Goofy enough, but she even put a condom on the end of her fake sword. And I asked her “Wait; why would you need a condom if you are…eh, nevermind.” She was of course ordered by the principle to remove it, and that was another Social Injustice. She basked in the 15 seconds of internet fame that she recieved as a victim of censorship…I am sure her father wished HE had practiced abstinence. I know I do.

< col Hiiiiiii Friends….'my friend's mom makes $88 every hour on the internet . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her payment was $13904 just working on the internet for a few hours.

< col Hiiiiiii Friends….'my friend's mom makes $88 every hour on the internet . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her payment was $13904 just working on the internet for a few hours.

< col Hiiiiiii Friends….'my friend's mom makes $88 every hour on the internet . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her payment was $13904 just working on the internet for a few hours.